Democratic lawmakers criticize Israel's defensive strikes against Iran's nuclear sites
Israel launched "Operation Rising Lion," targeting Iran's nuclear and missile infrastructure, and Iran responded with strikes in Tel Aviv, injuring at least five people.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) released a statement Friday calling Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an "extremist."
Could The Us Be Targeted As Iran Retaliates Against Israel?
"The world is more dangerous and unstable as a result of the extremist Netanyahu's government ongoing defiance of international law," Sanders wrote. "First, he uses the starvation of children in Gaza as a tool of war, a barbaric violation of the Geneva Conventions. Now, his illegal unilateral attack on Iran risks a full-blown regional war."
Sanders added the strikes "directly contravened" U.S. interests in resolving long-standing tensions over Iran's nuclear program.
Read On The Fox News App
"Talks were planned for Sunday, but Netanyahu chose instead to launch an attack," Sanders wrote. "The U.S. must make it clear that we will not be dragged into another Netanyahu war. Along with the international community we should do everything possible to prevent an escalation of this conflict and bring the warring parties to the negotiating table."
Senate Foreign Relations member Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., chimed in on social media Friday morning.
"Netanyahu wasn't trying to help diplomacy; he was trying to destroy diplomacy," Murphy wrote. "How do we know? They reportedly targeted and killed Iran's chief negotiator with Trump."
Global Calls To Avoid Escalation Pour In After Israeli Strikes On Iran
Tim Kaine, D-Va., who also serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added he could not understand why Israel would launch a preemptive strike when a meeting was scheduled between the U.S. and Iran this weekend.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said military aggression is "never the answer."
"Israel's alarming decision to launch airstrikes on Iran is a reckless escalation that risks igniting regional violence," Reed wrote. "These strikes threaten not only the lives of innocent civilians but the stability of the entire Middle East and the safety of American citizens and forces. While tensions between Israel and Iran are real and complex, military aggression of this scale is never the answer."
Trump Faces Critical Decision As Middle East Teeters On Brink Of War
By Friday afternoon, some Democrats seemingly changed their tune in response to the counter-attack.
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., slammed Iran's response, calling it "cowardice."
"#Israel's strike on #Iran was targeted precisely at senior Iranian military commanders and military sites that posed an existential threat to Israel," Sherman wrote. "The Islamic Republic's response? To target civilian centers in #TelAviv. Unsurprising cowardice from a regime that has spent decades brutalizing its own people."
Click Here For The Fox News App
Others evaded the conversation all together.
"This is a rapidly evolving situation, and it's critical that the United States works with our allies and avoid steps that will cause further escalation across the region," Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., wrote in a statement. "For years, Iran has threatened the safety of Israel and the region, and Israel has an undeniable right to defend itself and its citizens."Original article source: Democratic lawmakers criticize Israel's defensive strikes against Iran's nuclear sites
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
13 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser tried two different ways of dealing with Trump. Both had the same result.
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up When Trump returned to the Oval Office in January, the writing was on the wall that Bowser would have a less combative approach. Advertisement She preached cooperation, traveling to his Florida estate in December to meet with him. And the day before Advertisement But despite the change in strategy, Bowser has ended up in the same place as five years ago: with National Guard troops on the streets of Washington, D.C. This time, though, the federal intervention is even more pervasive. On Monday, Trump Bowser responded cautiously to Trump's latest move, calling it 'unsettling and unprecedented' but avoiding pointed rhetoric. It's the same type of measured response that has drawn criticism of some national Democrats from party activists who are demanding a more aggressive pushback against Trump. In this image provided by the Executive Office of the Mayor, District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser stood on the rooftop of the Hay Adams Hotel near the White House and looked out at the words Black Lives Matter that were painted in bright yellow letters in 2020. Khalid Naji-Allah/Associated Press But Bowser's position is unique: mayor of a city with strict limitations on its political independence. Washington has no senators and its lone House member can't vote on bills on the House floor, the reason why the city's license plates are emblazoned with 'End Taxation Without Representation.' Congress must approve the city's annual budget and has the ability to enact and overturn D.C. laws. Unlike in the last two years of Trump's first term, Republicans control both chambers of Congress. So Bowser has no Democratic backstop on Capitol Hill. 'The mayor of Chicago, the mayor of New York, the mayor of Boston can stand up and say whatever they want and their laws will not be touched by Congress,' D.C. City Council member Brianne K. Nadeau told the Globe. 'D.C. is incredibly vulnerable in a way that no other city in this country is.' Advertisement But Nadeau, a Democrat who acknowledges she and Bowser 'don't see eye to eye on much,' said she didn't have a problem with how Bowser is handling this latest test with Trump. 'It's tough,' she said. 'I'm certainly not interested in the job.' Alex Dobbs, cofounder of 'I'm not satisfied with how anyone is handling this erratic person who is disregarding the rule of law,' said Dobbs, whose group protested outside the White House on Monday. 'I know that everyone locally here in D.C., including the mayor, does not want this federal escalation.' Bowser said she doesn't have any second thoughts about her strategy for Trump in his second term or any plans to push back harder against his latest assertion of federal authority. 'My tenor will be appropriate for what I think is important for the district. And what's important for the district is that we can take care of our citizens,' she told reporters Monday in a news conference in which she refuted Trump's claims of out-of-control crime. The ultimate way to resolve the situation, she said, is to change Washington's second-class status. On Tuesday, Bowser continued to carefully navigate a potentially volatile situation. She had a meeting with Attorney General Pam Bondi, 'So how we got here, or what we think about the circumstances right now, we have more police and we want to make sure we're using them,' Bowser said after the meeting with Bondi. Advertisement Trump has long berated Washington, a city that has little love for him. He has called it a Trump didn't hold back on his rhetoric in announcing the federal actions in D.C. on Monday, saying he was taking 'historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor and worse.' Veteran Democratic strategist Donna Brazile, who has lived in Washingtonfor 44 years, said Trump and his Make America Great Again supporters have long had a target on the city. 'The district is in a unique situation. . . . Congress can interfere in our lives and livelihood. She's playing the hand she's been dealt‚" Brazile said of Bowser, whom she has been close to for years. 'Given [Trump's] long history of showing animosity toward those who disagree with him, as well as his impulse for retribution, the mayor is playing it absolutely right.' The one visible benefit of Bowser's approach is that Trump hasn't engaged in personal insults the way he did in his first term, when he called her 'Crime is way down, and there's a good relationship we have going with Muriel, so I want to thank you very much,' Advertisement But Trump radically changed his message after divert attention from the controversy over Justice Department files related to Jeffrey Epstein, who died in prison in 2019 awaiting trial on sex trafficking charges. Still, Trump 'One of the things that really is striking about the way the president talks about the mayor is that he does not denigrate her personally,' said George Derek Musgrove, coauthor the 2017 book 'Chocolate City, A History of Race and Democracy in the Nation's Capital." Bowser's cooperation with Trump has paid off in that 'very personal way,' added Musgrove, an associate history professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County. 'But that doesn't mean that the president is not going to pursue his agenda. And part of his agenda . . . is to sort of caricature Democratic governance as pro-crime." Nadeau, the D.C. city council member, warned that Trump's actions in the nation's capital are only the first step to federal intervention elsewhere. 'We are the easiest target because we don't have autonomy and because the president lives here,' she said, noting Trump mentioned Chicago, New York, Baltimore, and Oakland in his Monday news conference. 'I think he's targeting progressive cities. We may be the first, but we won't be the last.' Jim Puzzanghera can be reached at
Politico
14 minutes ago
- Politico
The new politics of Israel
GENERATION GAP — The questions were simple enough. Would you have voted to oppose sending weapons to Israel (as more than half of Senate Democrats recently did)? How do you think the next administration should handle our relationship with Israel? Do you think it's time to recognize a Palestinian state? But Pete Buttigieg, a top 2028 Democratic presidential prospect who was queried on Pod Save America on Sunday, still dodged them. His responses, in which he discussed a two-state solution and opposition to Trump, elicited an angry and dismissive response online, in particular from progressives. Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), himself a potential 2028 candidate, posted in response on X 'we need moral clarity, not status quo.' Ben Rhodes, a former deputy national security adviser to President Barack Obama, said, 'Pete is a smart guy, but I have absolutely no idea what he thinks based on these answers.' The frustration with (and mockery of) Buttigieg's answers online lays bare the degree to which perceptions about Israel have changed over the past two years, and how America's relationship with Israel is set to become a more animating factor than ever in Democratic primaries in 2026 and 2028. Buttigieg has been roundly praised for his foray into new media and 'bro podcasts,' platforms where the party has largely been missing in action in recent years. But the viral moment on Israel from his Pod Save America interview — an otherwise safe space for Democrats — makes clear that even the party's strongest communicators must now contend with a newly reshaped party landscape on the issue of the war in Gaza. In his questions, podcast host Jon Favreau pointed directly to the shift within the party — at the end of July, the majority of Senate Democrats voted in favor of two bills that would block the sale of automatic weapons to Israel and would block the sale of $675 million in munition kits and bombs. Just a few months earlier, in April, only 15 Democrats voted to block similar transfers. It's a dramatic departure from the past, when the default party position was nearly unqualified support for Israel and those who broke with that stance — typically House progressives — were in a distinct minority. But it's a reflection of the new Democratic politics surrounding Israel, a directional change that has taken place with remarkable velocity since Hamas' brutal attack in October 2023. In the aftermath of that tragedy, exactly half of Americans (50 percent) approved of Israel's military action in Gaza, compared to 45 percent who disapproved. But since then support has eroded significantly — in a July Gallup poll, just 32 percent approved of the military action, the lowest point since Gallup first asked the question in November 2023. While support for Israel remains stable (and high) among Republicans, it has cratered among Democrats — just 8 percent of Democrats approve of Israel's military action in Gaza, down from 36 percent just after the attacks. The bottom has fallen out of conservative Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's popularity as well. While Netanyahu remains popular among Republicans, among Democrats his favorability rating has plummeted to just 9 percent. That's only slightly higher than President Donald Trump's approval ratings among Democrats. A June Quinnipiac University poll found something similar. When asked whether their sympathies lie more with the Israelis or more with the Palestinians based on what they know about the situation in the Middle East, just 12 percent of Democrats said the Israelis, while 60 percent said the Palestinians. Twenty-nine percent had no opinion. These rock-bottom levels of support explain the subtle, but increasingly noticeable, recalibrations that are taking place among Democratic candidates and elected officials. It reveals that traditional solid support for Israel is no longer politically sustainable in a restive party where the energy is on the left and among its youngest members — the two quarters where sympathy for Palestinians and support for an independent Palestinian state is highest. That's a change even from 2024, the first post-terror attack American election, when Israel policy was one of the defining features of House campaigns and the Democratic presidential primary. Back then, pro-Israel advocacy groups helped knock off two progressive incumbents who were critical of Israel in primaries, and President Joe Biden continued to show support for Israel's military campaign against Hamas fighters even in the face of an energetic 'uncommitted' effort designed to protest his policies. At the time, support for Israel's military action among Democrats was in the mid-20 percent range, according to Gallup. But in the upcoming 2026 primary season, if current party sentiment holds, the level of support will be in single digits. And there isn't much reason to expect it will return to prior levels anytime soon since the primary season will unfold on the heels of reports of mass starvation in Gaza, rising international anger toward Israel's restrictions on aid and a renewed Gaza offensive. The effects of that low level of support for Israel within the party could be wide-ranging. It could encourage protest candidates who tie it into their message of generational change. It will inevitably reshape the stances of the 2028 presidential primary field, not to mention recharge the party platform fight at the 2028 Democratic National Convention. What it suggests is a new normal going forward, especially because of the generational dimension to the debate. A 2024 Pew Research poll found that among Americans aged 65 and older, 47 percent said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people, while just 9 percent sympathized entirely or mostly with the Palestinians. The numbers were almost flipped with younger voters, however. One-third of adults under 30 said their sympathies were either entirely or mostly with the Palestinian people, compared to just 14 percent who said their sympathies lie entirely or mostly with the Israeli people. They have an entirely different outlook than older Americans, whose historical frame of reference includes the Holocaust, the founding of the state of Israel, the Six Day War, the Munich Olympics, the Yom Kippur War, and other events. Young Democrats have only known a world with Netanyahu at the head of Israel's government. They have had a steady diet of images of dead Palestinians and starving children in Gaza on social media. Against that backdrop, as Buttigieg found out this week, the recycled rhetoric of the past, in the absence of a clear stand, is no longer cutting it in his party. Welcome to POLITICO Nightly. Reach out with news, tips and ideas at nightly@ Or contact tonight's authors at cmahtesian@ and cmchugh@ or on X (formerly known as Twitter) at @PoliticoCharlie and @calder_mchugh. What'd I Miss? — 'Trusting Trump's instincts': White House sets modest expectations ahead of Putin summit: White House officials are tempering expectations ahead of Friday's summit between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, casting it as a step toward a peaceful solution to the Ukraine war and avoiding promises of a ceasefire or any other type of grand bargain. The goal, a White House official said, is for Trump to simply take the measure of Putin, find out if the Russian leader is serious and work toward a trilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. — Trump BLS pick hints at halting monthly jobs report: President Donald Trump's pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics is floating the idea of suspending the monthly jobs report in favor of less-frequent quarterly data published by the statistical agency. E.J. Antoni said that BLS should halt issuing the reports — which are widely relied upon by economists, the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and other businesses to gauge the state of the economy in close to real time — until its methods can be improved to limit subsequent revisions. — Lula, Trump at a standstill on tariffs: President Donald Trump has used tariffs to pressure world leaders on a host of non-trade issues. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is one of the few who isn't budging. The left-wing South American president has taken a forceful response to the 50 percent tariffs Trump announced in July, last week calling on India, China and other emerging economies to unite against the U.S. levies. Lula, as Brazil's president is known, called the tariffs 'unacceptable blackmail' and filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization, after Trump tied the levies in part to the prosecution of former Brazilian president and far-right Trump acolyte Jair Bolsonaro. Unlike countries that have caved to Trump's demands on digital services taxes or defense spending, Trump has tied tariffs so large they are effectively sanctions to an issue Lula's government has made clear it won't negotiate on. — Paxton urges Texas judge to jail Beto O'Rourke over fundraising related to redistricting fight: Attorney General Ken Paxton has asked a Texas district court judge to jail former Rep. Beto O'Rourke over his fundraising pitches connected to the state's intensifying redistricting battle. Paxton's request accused the Texas Democrat of violating a court order that the judge, Tarrant County's Megan Fahey, issued last week that barred fundraising by O'Rourke and his nonprofit Powered by People intended to bankroll the efforts by Texas Democratic lawmakers to derail the redistricting effort. In support of his claim, he highlighted a remark O'Rourke made at a Saturday rally — a day after Fahey's order — saying 'there are no refs in this game. Fuck the rules.' But an attorney for O'Rourke says Paxton's characterization of O'Rourke's remark was an 'outright lie.' — Judge orders ICE to stop forcing detainees to sleep on dirty concrete floors: A federal judge ordered the Trump administration today to improve the conditions for ICE detainees in Manhattan after a lawsuit filed by a Peruvian immigrant complained of cramped and unsanitary holding cells. U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered officials by Aug. 26 to provide more spacious accommodations that are equipped with a bedding mat for each detainee held overnight, have hygiene supplies and are cleaned 'thoroughly' at least three times a day. Kaplan, a Clinton appointee, also ordered officials to allow detainees private phone calls with their lawyers within 24 hours of being detained and to give them a printed notice of their rights within one hour of being placed in a holding room. AROUND THE WORLD ZELENSKYY'S NON-NEGOTIABLES — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said he will not give the Donbas region to Russia as part of a ceasefire deal, days ahead of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin's meeting in Alaska. The U.S. and Russian presidents are set to meet Friday to discuss a truce in the Ukraine war, which Trump said would require some exchange of territories. 'We will not leave Donbas. We cannot do this. Donbas for the Russians is a springboard for a future new offensive,' Zelenskyy told journalists in Kyiv today. TAKING THE LEAD — The far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) has become the most popular party in the country, according to a striking new poll published today. If a national election were now held, 26 percent of Germans would vote for the AfD, according to a poll carried out by the Forsa Institute for Social Research and Statistical Analysis. That result puts the far-right party ahead of German Chancellor Friedrich Merz's mainstream conservative bloc, which slid to second with 24 percent support in the poll. With the far-right National Rally already leading clearly in France, the bombshell German survey is likely to fuel unease among mainstream leaders across Europe. Right-wing populist parties have performed strongly in elections in recent years from Poland to Romania, and Portugal to the Netherlands. Nightly Number RADAR SWEEP YOUR CLOTHES' SECOND LIFE — If you've ever dropped a bag of clothes in a donation bin, chances are it ended up in Ghana, one of the world's biggest importer of used clothing. Every week, 15 million pieces of secondhand clothing arrived at the Kantamanto market in Accra where traders try to sell them to locals and sellers from around West Africa. As new clothing sales have quadrupled in the last 20 years, nonprofits in Ghana are finding innovative ways to upcycle clothing waste before they are dumped in landfills. Charlie Campbell reports for TIME. Parting Image Jacqueline Munis contributed to this newsletter. Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Yahoo
38 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Anas Al-Sharif became the face of the war in Gaza for millions. Then Israel killed him
As a ceasefire in Gaza took hold in January, Anas Al-Sharif began removing his protective gear live on television, piece by piece, while a jubilant crowd cheered, hoping the day marked the end of the suffering of 2 million Palestinians in the enclave. Nearly seven months later, Israel killed the Al Jazeera journalist and four of his colleagues in a strike in Gaza City. One of the most well-known Palestinian journalists in Gaza – and one of dozens to be killed by Israel during the war – Al-Sharif's death has ignited international condemnation and calls for accountability. The 28-year-old rose to prominence as the face of the Gaza story for millions while Israel has blocked international media outlets from accessing the territory. Little known before the war, he quickly turned into a household name in the Arab world for his daily coverage of the conflict and its humanitarian toll. His reports provided first-hand accounts of critical moments in the conflict, including the short-lived ceasefires in the territory, the release of Israeli hostages and harrowing stories of the starvation that have shocked the world. Al Jazeera recruited Al-Sharif in December 2023 after his social media footage of Israeli strikes in his hometown of Jabalya went viral. Then a professional cameraman, he was initially reluctant to appear on air but was persuaded by colleagues to front his reports, an experience he called 'indescribable.' 'I had never even appeared on a local channel let alone an international one,' he was cited as saying in the Sotour media outlet in February. 'The person who was happiest was my late father.' His father was killed in an Israeli airstrike on Jabalya shortly after Al-Sharif began appearing on Al Jazeera. A father of two, he appeared on the channel nearly every day since he started his job. 'We (journalists) slept in hospitals, in streets, in vehicles, in ambulances, in displacement shelters, in warehouses, with displaced people. I slept in 30 to 40 different places,' he told the outlet. After he took off his protective gear on air in January, crowds lifted him on their shoulders in celebration. 'I am taking off the helmet that tired me, and this armor that has become an extension of my body,' he said live on Al Jazeera at the time as he paid tribute to colleagues killed and injured in Israeli strikes on Gaza. Al-Sharif's reports attracted the attention of the Israeli military, which, he claimed, warned him to stop his work for Al Jazeera, a network that had already lost several staff members to Israeli actions in Gaza, including Ismail Al Ghoul, killed last year, and Hossam Shabat, killed in March. 'At the end, (the Israeli military) sent me voice notes on my WhatsApp number… an intelligence officer told me… 'you have minutes to leave the location you are in, go to the south, and stop reporting for Al Jazeera'… I was reporting from a hospital live.' 'Minutes later, the room I was reporting from was struck,' he said. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) didn't respond to CNN's request for comment. Why now? Israel first accused Al-Sharif of being linked to Hamas 10 months ago. Why it decided to target him now is unclear. In a statement confirming his targeted killing, the IDF accused Al-Sharif of leading a Hamas cell in Gaza that orchestrated 'rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF forces.' In October 2024, the Israeli military published documents it claimed showed 'unequivocal proof' of Al-Sharif's ties to Hamas and named five other Al Jazeera journalists who it said were part of the militant group. An Israeli army spokesperson said in a video on X that Al-Sharif joined a Hamas battalion in 2013, and was injured in training in 2017, CNN has not been able to independently confirm the IDF's claims. Al-Sharif denied the accusations, and Irene Khan, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of expression, also rejected them. 'I reaffirm: I, Anas Al-Sharif, am a journalist with no political affiliations. My only mission is to report the truth from the ground – as it is, without bias,' he wrote last month. 'At a time when a deadly famine is ravaging Gaza, speaking the truth has become, in the eyes of the occupation, a threat.' Following the killing, the IDF's Arabic spokesperson published several pictures of Al-Sharif with Yahya Sinwar, the late Hamas leader who is believed to have masterminded the October 7, 2023 attack that left around 1,200 people in Israel dead and roughly 250 more taken hostage. Israel killed Sinwar in October 2024. CNN has established that, before the war in Gaza, Al-Sharif worked for a Hamas media team in the strip. In an audio recording from several months ago, Al-Sharif could be heard criticizing the stance adopted by the Hamas negotiating team. When he was killed on Sunday, Al-Sharif was in a tent with other journalists near the entrance to the Al-Shifa Hospital, according to hospital director Dr. Mohammad Abu Salmiya. The tent was marked with a 'Press' sign, Abu Salmiya told CNN. The strike killed at least seven people, he added. Al Jazeera said correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and photojournalists Ibrahim Al Thaher and Moamen Aliwa were also killed in the strike, as well as Mohammed Noufal, another staff member. 'Pattern of accusing journalists' Al-Sharif's killing prompted condemnations from rights groups and officials. The Committee to Protect Journalists said it was 'appalled,' adding that Israel has 'a longstanding, documented pattern of accusing journalists of being terrorists without providing any credible proof.' The CPJ said 192 journalists have been killed since the beginning of the war nearly two years ago, adding: '184 of those journalists are Palestinians killed by Israel.' Since the start of the war, Israel has not allowed international journalists to enter Gaza to report independently. Just hours before the strike that killed Al-Sharif and his colleagues, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said foreign journalists would now be allowed into Gaza, but only with Israeli military approval and accompanied by them, the same embed policy that has been in place since the beginning of the war. Al Jazeera, based in Qatar, is one of the few global news outlets broadcasting live from Gaza during the conflict, unlike others that primarily rely on local freelance journalists. As one of the most watched channels in the Arab world, its continuous coverage of Gaza has drawn a significant viewership among Palestinians and Arabic-speaking audiences. The network's YouTube channel has more than 21 million subscribers and nearly 16 billion views, with a live stream that attracts millions of viewers Al-Sharif gained prominence in the network as many of its well-known journalists in Gaza were killed or injured by Israeli strikes. Wael Al Dahdouh, the former Gaza bureau chief, was evacuated to Qatar after sustaining injuries and having most of his family killed. Al-Sharif then emerged as a roving reporter across Gaza, providing Al Jazeera with live updates from the north of the enclave. He also regularly posted videos on his Telegram channel highlighting the toll of the war on Palestinians. Last year, Israel banned the Al Jazeera from operating in the country under a sweeping new wartime law that allows the Israeli government to ban foreign media organizations it deems 'harmful' to the nation's security. Al-Sharif was buried in Gaza on Monday in a funeral that attracted large crowds of Palestinian mourners. Anticipating his own death, Al-Sharif had written a will that was released by his colleagues after he was killed. 'I have lived through pain in all its details, tasted suffering and loss many times, yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification… If I die, I die steadfast upon my principles,' he wrote. 'Do not forget Gaza … and do not forget me in your sincere prayers for forgiveness and acceptance.'
